Steve Jobs' recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still …

Share this story

Steve Jobs' recent missive on the deficiencies of Adobe's Flash is still reverberating around the Internet. In this guest editorial, John Sullivan of the Free Software Foundation responds, arguing that Apple is presenting users with a false choice between Adobe's proprietary software and Apple's walled garden.

Watching two proprietary software companies deeply opposed to computer user freedom lob accusations back and forth about who is more opposed to freedom has been surreal, to say the least. But what's been crystal clear is that the freedom these companies are arguing about is their own, not that of their users. And what they are calling freedom isn't freedom at all—it is the ability to control those users. Adobe is mad at Apple for not letting Adobe control iPhone, iPad, and iPod Touch users via Flash, and Apple is mad at Adobe for suggesting that Apple is arbitrarily abusing its control over Application Store users.

Steve Jobs's "Thoughts on Flash" is the latest volley in this bout between pot and kettle, and while it makes many dead-on criticisms of Adobe and Flash, it does not change the fundamental character of this disagreement, nor does it solve any concerns about Apple's broader intentions.

What's strangely absent from "Thoughts on Flash" is any explanation for why proprietary technology on the Web is bad, or why free standards are good. Noting this omission helps us understand why, though we agree with his assessment of the problems with Flash and the importance of free Web standards, Jobs is led to a solution that is bizarre and unacceptable.

If he had said anything about why user freedom on the Web is important, his hypocrisy would have been explicit. In a nutshell, he says, "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." He doesn't want users to freely wander and creatively explore the Web or their own computers; he wants them to move from the fenced-off "Freedom Zone" based in San Jose to the one based in Cupertino.

Freedom on the Web has multiple elements. Free standards like HTML5, which govern Web publishing, are critical and have amazing potential, but they are only one element. Standards are not enough on their own, because there is another layer between them and the computer user—the software used to interact with the Web, and the operating system surrounding it. Freedom in terms of Web publishing does no good if the software with which you access the Web filters it before it ever gets to you, or restricts you in other ways in order to grant access to the Web. Proprietary software can be compatible with free standards while simultaneously undercutting the values those free standards seek to achieve. Such "freedom" will always be contingent. In order to have an actual, irrevocably free Web, both the Web publishing standards and the software which accesses them will need to be free.

Although Jobs talks part of the talk when he says, "we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open," his walk goes the opposite direction, advocating both a proprietary video format, H.264, and proprietary software for engaging it—iPhone OS.

The definition of proprietary software is software which restricts users' freedoms to view its source code, run it for any purpose, share it, or modify it. Jobs himself defines proprietary software when he says:

Adobe's Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

The dreaded fine-print EULA is a primary tool software companies use to implement such restrictions. Looking at the EULAs for Apple and Adobe, we can see that they look pretty much the same, and that "iPhone OS" and "Apple" could be substituted for "Adobe" and "Flash" in Jobs's own quote. His implicit admission of this, that "Apple has many proprietary products too," is a comical understatement.

You may install and use one copy of the Software on your compatible Computer.

This license does not grant you the right to sublicense or distribute the Software.

You may not modify, adapt, translate or create derivative works based upon the Software. You will not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or otherwise attempt to discover the source code of the Software except to the extent you may be expressly permitted to reverse engineer or decompile under applicable law.

(ii) You shall be authorized to use the Products only for personal, noncommercial use.

(iii) You shall be authorized to use the Products on five Apple-authorized devices at any time, except in the case of Movie Rentals, as described below.

Part of the reason why Flash and iPhone OS are proprietary is that Adobe and Apple agreed to the terms of the H.264 patent license. H.264, despite Jobs's claim, is not a free standard—patents necessary to implement it are held by a group that requires all users to agree to a license with restrictive terms. Those terms have previously even been unavailable for examination online. We are publishing them on fsf.org today in order to comment on their unethical restrictions. The fact that H.264 is a commonly used standard does not make it a free standard—the terms of its use are what matter, and they require all licensed software to include the following notice:

THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (I) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (II) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM

Any Web that can be engaged only after agreeing to such terms, whether for software or a standard, is not "free" or "open." It is gated, and its use is restricted. Jobs himself explains the problems with giving up the freedom to use your computer and its software to another, when he says, "[Apple] cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers."

We agree with that statement, and it's exactly why users should not place themselves at the mercy of Apple or H.264 either. If you buy an iPhone OS computer, there is no recourse if Apple makes a decision you do not like. You'll wait on Apple to approve or not approve the application with features you want to use, you'll never be assured that Apple won't remove the application once it's accepted, and you'll wait on Apple to implement any bug fixes or new features, or to take care of your security—even though it's ostensibly your platform, your computer, and part of your life.

Better conclusions

A free Web needs free software. You cannot have a free Web if your access to the software you use to engage the Web is limited to an arbitrary number of computers, or if you are not allowed to conduct business on the Web using the software, or if you are forbidden from asking someone to develop additional features you need.

Jobs has hit the nail on the head when describing the problems with Adobe, but not until after smashing his own thumb. Every criticism he makes of Adobe's proprietary approach applies equally to Apple, and every benefit attributed to the App Store can be had without it being a mandatory proprietary arrangement. Apple can offer quality control and editorial selection over available free software, and encourage users to exclusively—but voluntarily—use their store. Instead, Apple chooses to enforce legal restrictions, the transgression of which is punishable by criminal law, on users who want to make changes to their own computers, like installing free, non-Apple, software.

Fortunately, the way out of the Adobe vs. Apple cage match is straightforward, and exists already: free software operating systems like GNU/Linux with free software Web browsers, supporting free media formats like Ogg Theora. To make things even better, we can continue urging Google to release their new media format, VP8, under a free license as well.

The language of the GNU General Public License, used by thousands of GNU/Linux developers worldwide as the terms for distributing their software, stands in stark contrast to the proprietary EULAs cited above, and provides a useful tool for building and sharing software to actually engage the free Web:

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program—to make sure it remains free software for all its users.

When Jobs defensively points to Apple's involvement in WebKit, he inadvertently makes the case for the superiority of free software over his own proprietary App Store approach. WebKit is indeed free software, and Apple did help make it happen. But the success of WebKit is neither Apple's success alone (in fact, some of its advances have been achieved in spite of some uncooperative behavior by Apple) nor is it a result of their proprietary approach. They are one contributor among others, and those others are able to contribute because the software is freely licensed. WebKit users are not at the mercy of Apple—the source code is available and can be legally modified, so anyone is entitled to make and distribute new features or fixes. WebKit is an example of what the free Web can actually be. But, sadly, Jobs can't stand to let it be that—while the core of Safari is WebKit, it is engulfed in other proprietary code, giving Apple leverage we should reject.

So, the correct decision in the dispute between Apple and Adobe is "none of the above." The past we need to leave behind is not just Flash, it's Apple's proprietary software as well. There is plenty of room for them to join us along with everyone else in the free world—but they must stop pretending that their little cages are the free world.

John Sullivan is the operations manager for the Free Software Foundation.

I don't see Steve Jobs' hypocrisy as being unintended or a complete lack of self-awareness. Rather, I simply think it's yet another brilliant marketing move by Steve Jobs to change the discussion away from the closed, proprietary nature of the iDevice ecosystem.

He was just smart enough to get this out there before someone else did, and get a ridiculous amount of press for doing so.

Apple makes some great products, of course, and I love my iPhone (for now), but above all, Steve Jobs will go down in history as the most brilliant marketer of all time.

I _knew_ there was a reason I didn't want to develop for platforms like Nintendo … or Sony … or TiVo … <wrings hands> ohhhh, why oh why must I heed their design and development requirements? Surely nothing good will come of this.

Thank you for posting this hit-generating diatribe. You lost me at "Don't use Adobe's proprietary platform to engage with information on the Web. Use Apple's." because that's not what Steve Jobs said. Not at all. Not imaginably.

What he said was "Adobe is pushing a closed platform that is poorly written. We won't let you use this bad tool to write software for our hardware."

And that, in a nutshell, is entirely his right. It is also, in my opinion, the right way to go about it. He's promoting open tools to build for his closed platform - one would think that someone from the Free Software Foundation would understand that - tragically not, in this case.

You don't control Apple. Apple doesn't control you. It shouldn't shock you, though, that other tech companies appear to believe that Apple has the right idea; we've seen the death of Courier and Slate in extremely short order. With HP acquiring WebOS... er.. I mean Palm, it's clear that more of the industry is going to move to a more secure, more reliable (feel free to debate that) walled garden approach.

The time is short for wide open platforms, unless YOU can come up with something to convince manufacturers and consumers to stay there. If you can't, you'd better get used to developing for iPhone OS, WebOS, and ZuneOS. So there's the challenge - stop misquoting people and start offering alternatives we can get behind.

Of course this post addresses Apple's obvious interests in becoming more proprietary than Nintendo.

That still doesn't address the impact to the end user from a reprise of MS-DOS where there is no opportunity for alternatives to sprout up. You don't have to be a Free Software zealot to appreciate the value of being able to run any d*mn piece of software you want regardless of whether or not it came from the Free Software Foundation or Electronic Arts.

Apple has taken the lack of freedom to a new level. Of course everyone knows what his true intentions are. We all (at least most of us) smart enough to see through appear-to-pander-to-the-customer rhetoric.

I don't claim that Apple or Adobe is right (though I think the Flash PLUGIN is an abomination, that's not really the point)

But

You are using your own deception here:

"H.264, despite Jobs's claim, is not a free standard—patents necessary to implement it are held by a group that requires all users to agree to a license with restrictive terms."

This is misleading. Jobs did not claim that H.264 was free, only that it was open.

Like many people, I work on commercial software for a living. Software patents, while undesirable, are a fact of life. And the H.264 license _is_ open, even though it is not free. It is an open standard and not open to any single company's ability to arbitrarily change or define.

Attacking the use of H.264 is ridiculous and misses the point. You may as well be attacking them for not making everything GPL and changing the name of all software to have "GNU" in it somewhere.

You attack Jobs for pushing his own agenda, but your agenda is (to me) at least as self serving as his, and neither one of you is serving MY needs or desires.

I _knew_ there was a reason I didn't want to develop for platforms like Nintendo … or Sony … or TiVo … <wrings hands> ohhhh, why oh why must I heed their design and development requirements? Surely nothing good will come of this.

Nintendo won't stop you from using the development methodology of your choice. Nintendo won't stop you from using Free Software or some proprietary 3rd party middleware to develop your games.

Your attempt to conflate the iPad with Nintendo does not match the reality of the situation.

Although the thing most disturbing here is how so many people are so willing to relegate general purpose computing to the status of games console.

@ksgant: Spot on. The FSF is over the top, once again. Why do I carry an iPhone and not a Linux phone with a GPL browser? Because I picked out the phone I liked best at the time (almost 2 years ago) that had the best form factor, aesthetics, engineering, and integration into my other digital devices -- namely my MacBook.

I write open source software for a living -- I'm hardly a bigot -- but I don't understand the fury over Apple vs. Adobe. Let them duke it out and let the market decide. And if you don't like either closed platform, then you are free to use a 100% GPL alternative. Nobody forced you to buy any products.

Apple has always been a closed company. Why do you think nobody else is allowed to build PCs which run Mac OS X? They see it as a technology advantage -- control the OS and the hardware and you can engineer a better overall experience. I don't understand the sudden furor over this approach; it's been their MO since 1984.

Jobs freely admits that Apple's platforms are proprietary. The difference between Apple and Adobe in my view is that if you don't want into Apple's closed system.... then don't buy into it. There are other desktop OS's in Windows, other mobile OS's in RIM, webOS, Android, WP7, and other slate OS's in Android, webOS, and whatever MS eventually comes up with.

Flash as a video container has it's closed ecosystem affecting everyone regardless of what OS you're using, which is the problem.

Is Jobs' argument also self serving? Yes. But since this is also furthering open standards, I'd take it as a win overall.

I think all the discussion in Job's letter about HTML 5 is their way of distracting us from the real issue.

To me, the real issue is getting locked into the proprietary single platform that is mandated by using iPhone/iPad apps through the app store. Flash, for all its issues, is at least cross platform. It gives us the option of using that cool twitter app or game on our next device not sold by one vendor.

That still doesn't address the impact to the end user from a reprise of MS-DOS where there is no opportunity for alternatives to sprout up. You don't have to be a Free Software zealot to appreciate the value of being able to run any d*mn piece of software you want regardless of whether or not it came from the Free Software Foundation or Electronic Arts.

Well then, don't buy Apple products. No one is forcing you. But I'd prefer the App Store model, because in general it has most of the apps I want. I'm not defending Apple's seemingly arbitrary rejections, but in most cases it's worked out pretty well. Google Voice is the only thing I wish that had a native app, other than that I could care less about running any damn piece of software, because I won't use it. I assume the same reasoning would apply to other people... they simply would use whatever software suits their needs and to hell with the rest.

I don't understand the fury over Apple vs. Adobe. Let them duke it out and let the market decide. And if you don't like either closed platform, then you are free to use a 100% GPL alternative. Nobody forced you to buy any products.

The concern is a push away from open systems to closed ones, and Apple dictating to their users what they can partake in. This isn't an issue at the moment, but the concern is of it becoming "The Way Things Are Done" across the industry.

Quote:

Apple has always been a closed company. Why do you think nobody else is allowed to build PCs which run Mac OS X? They see it as a technology advantage -- control the OS and the hardware and you can engineer a better overall experience. I don't understand the sudden furor over this approach; it's been their MO since 1984.

To be entirely practical, it's one thing to be closed source and another to be wholly locked down. One is tolerable, as you still have choice. The second is where industry wants to herd everyone and is intolerable. I think there'd be a fraction of the fury if the App Store wasn't the -sole- means of loading software on the iProducts without jailbreaking.

Something I think many are overlooking is that users can use a *multitude* of devices, each with its own approach to engaging the internet. As long as the standards are open and the data can flow freely between devices, than all this hullabaloo around Apple's or Google's ecosystems are moot.

I can buy an iPad, a Windows Phone 7, and an Android netbook and have them all accessing the same info and use each to their strengths. Whether Flash exists on the iPad just means I don't access that particular content on that particular device. Not all devices will access all content on something as vibrant and diverse as the internet.

We're all Geeks here, right? Its not like any of us only use tech from a single company or a single OS. And that is a good thing.

That still doesn't address the impact to the end user from a reprise of MS-DOS where there is no opportunity for alternatives to sprout up. You don't have to be a Free Software zealot to appreciate the value of being able to run any d*mn piece of software you want regardless of whether or not it came from the Free Software Foundation or Electronic Arts.

Well then, don't buy Apple products. No one is forcing you.

Yet.

I suspect that you are an Apple fanboy that hasn't been around long enough to remember the 80s and 90s.

I _knew_ there was a reason I didn't want to develop for platforms like Nintendo … or Sony … or TiVo … <wrings hands> ohhhh, why oh why must I heed their design and development requirements? Surely nothing good will come of this.

Nintendo won't stop you from using the development methodology of your choice. Nintendo won't stop you from using Free Software or some proprietary 3rd party middleware to develop your games.

Your attempt to conflate the iPad with Nintendo does not match the reality of the situation.

Nintendo dictates the percentage of your sales they get. Nintendo also stipulates what can be released on their platforms. Nintendo also is the one who started the closed game console ecosystem with the NES: many felt at the time that one of the large reasons behind the video game market crash of the mid 80's was Atari letting any developer put out any software they wanted for the 2600 that they pleased.

Nimtendo's decision to vet and approve any software that was released on their consoles is one that has since been copied by every game console creator since the mid 80's.

I'm not saying your point is invalid, but Nintendo is a poor choice from which to argue it.

Quote:

Although the thing most disturbing here is how so many people are so willing to relegate general purpose computing to the status of games console.

Because people don't care. They want their tech products to work as they want it to. Google has decided to go with a more freeform approach. The market will decide whether Apple or Google's approach is better. Which is the way it should be.

To make things even better, we can continue urging Google to release their new media format, VP8, under a free license as well.

Doesn't do anyone any good unless Google also indemnifies VP8 users against patent trolls.

That said, Jobs was right, and I'm particularly pleased the love HTML5 is getting. Tools like PhoneGap have been OK'd by Apple and allow cross platform development (iPhone, BB, WinPhone, etc) while still maintaining a open, free standards-based approach for developing the software. It wont be long before we see other standards like WebGL supported on mobile devices to allow for web-based 3G games.

The future is Free, even if the FSF themselves cant see past the end of their nose.

That still doesn't address the impact to the end user from a reprise of MS-DOS where there is no opportunity for alternatives to sprout up. You don't have to be a Free Software zealot to appreciate the value of being able to run any d*mn piece of software you want regardless of whether or not it came from the Free Software Foundation or Electronic Arts.

Well then, don't buy Apple products. No one is forcing you.

Quote:

Yet.

I suspect that you are an Apple fanboy that hasn't been around long enough to remember the 80s and 90s.

I'm relatively new to following the tech industry. There was a time when Apple could force consumers to buy their products?

Why are you comparing the App Store to the web, as if the two are the same? My iDevices have access to the App Store and also have a wonderful browser to access the web with. They are not the same thing. If Apple wants the web to be open and standard, it's so any device can access it. Maybe your device is totally open, maybe mine is totally closed, but they both access the same web and that web should be free to anyone. Flash fits no part of that free web. Why argue about the cars when it's the road you should be paying attention to.

What is more closed the Apple? I mean Apple's whole marketing strategy appears to me closed. Come on, Steve Jobs is full of it. The whole purpose of Apple is for you to buy into their ecosystem of products and keep going deeper into that system. No matter what product of Apple's you take it works better with another Apple product. As for Flash its here and people both Mac and PC as well as Linux users need it. Should it be up to Apple to decide if you as a user should be able to view Flash content? My answer is NO.

People whose posts focus on HTML5 are missing the point. This argument is about Flash as a platform for building native iPhone applications through source code transformation, which Apple has forbidden in their developer contract. This is not about having the Flash plugin for Mobile Safari.

The iPhone as a platform isn't free and can never be free because the user is unable to load his own software onto the device. Apple could remove all the applications from the App Store today, and users would have no recourse. It is the furthest thing from freedom.

Jobs is the CEO of Apple. He can do whatever the heck he wants to with his products. If he chooses to abandon Adobe and you buy an iPhone then YOU choose to abandon Adobe as well. I'm tired of all the people who own iPhones complaining about how closed Apple is. YOU bought it. Now live with it.

I love the iPhone. It's a great device but it will never be perfect and it will never meet everyone's needs in the same way that an engineer will never invent a perpetual motion machine. People need to stop looking at what they don't have and start looking at what they do have.

And that, in a nutshell, is entirely his right. It is also, in my opinion, the right way to go about it. He's promoting open tools to build for his closed platform - one would think that someone from the Free Software Foundation would understand that - tragically not, in this case.

Except they're not open. HTML5 is, H.264 isn't.

Quote:

You don't control Apple. Apple doesn't control you.

Apple does control you, the moment you purchase any iDevice. They dictate what you can and can't do with it, when and how. If you decide to do it your own way you have to commit an illegal act (rootkit).There would be less rancor towards Apple if they got rid of just that last thing.

Sure, have the walled garden, consistently demonstrate how it's better to be in the walled garden than not, but give people that self same freedom to use the device in an open way that he's espousing. It's utterly two faced to be pushing openness whilst working everything in your power to block it.

Apple always used to offer "Expert Mode" with their software, back in the day. You could stay in the walled garden of normal user experience, but Expert mode gave you all the extras if you wanted. Why not do the same for the iDevices?

It stuns me in a country that promotes freedom, free speech and free will so much that fights against gun control, market regulation, etc. etc. so much quite merrily ignores such concerns when it comes to their use of technology.

The fact that h264 can be implemented by a wider array of companies than just one, doesn't make it an open standard. An open standard is not something that you can be sued for using.

Some people mistakenly think that today's free lunch will last forever. That's potentially a very dangerous assumption.

Open but not Free. These are distinct terms with very different meanings, do not conflate them.

This point is moot. Jobs calls it neither an open, or a free standard. He calls it an "industry" standard.

There is nothing hypocritical about his essay. Self serving, yes. Not hypocritical (he openly admits that Apple has proprietary products, but says Apple wants the "web" to be as open as possible).

Also, the H.264 vs. Ogg/Theora is also moot, because the former is a better standard, but most importantly, is miles ahead in terms of HW support (talking about dedicated decoding HW chipsets). If you want mobile video, currently H.264 is the only reasonable way to go.

I will, of course, be anxiously awaiting the FSF's second guest editorial, decrying the Nintendo DS's and Sony PSP's walled garden, as well. And the one for every generation of phone that ran much of anything prior to the iPhone. And their editorial concerning the disappearance of Linux from the PS3. And, well, so many other things that are as bad or more so from the FSF's standpoint.

This is, as should be clear to anyone who's read the editorial, just another example of the FSF horning in on a public controversy to get some free press. Both Apple and Adobe don't play by the FSF's rules - which is good, because even the FSF can't make a reasonable case as to what benefit a completely RMS-interpretation-of-"free"-based world of software development would bring - and the issue at hand is a question of what runtime engine a particular set of hardware uses, which, honestly, has about as much to do with how code is licensed and distributed as it does with rennet production in Lancashire.

The FSF has done good work in the past, and may very well do good work in the future, but that doesn't mean we have to listen to their stock rant about free software every single time they want to shove their way into the spotlight to give it, and we especially don't have to *care* about their stock rant when it's near-irrelevant. This particular situation is analogous to PETA sending in an editorial decrying sheep-shearing while carefully ignoring the slaughterhouse two streets over.